Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : Bombay HC criticizes Pune Police for copying FIR from private complaint, highlighting legal implications and citizen harassment is...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC remands Somnath Commosales Pvt Ltd case to AO for fresh assessment. The final opportunity is granted; non-cooperation ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court ruled Section 130 of GST Act can't be applied for excess stock found during search; Section 73/74 should be u...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses appeal by revenue, upholds ITAT decision quashing PCIT order under Section 263 on MAT credit and doubtful de...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court affirms ITAT's decision to delete income tax addition under Section 69 due to lack of direct evidence against ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that GST authorities can survey business premises for verifying transactions when goods are intercepted without...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
CIT Vs A.R. Trust (Allahabad High Court) Section 12 AA of the Act provides that the Registering Authority after satisfying himself about the objects of the Trust and genuineness of its activities shall pass an order in writing for registration of the Trust or to refuse the registration. Therefore, satisfaction of the Registering Authority is […]
The petitioner is an Indian citizen. He is a businessman and says that he plays international cricket representing India. He also plays domestic cricket. He participated in what is known as Indian Premier League (IPL). He was one of the players chosen by the franchisee Knight Riders Sports Private Limited. This franchisee is owner of one team in the IPL, namely, Kolkata Knight Riders. An agreement of 21 st April, 2008 with the petitioner was executed by this franchisee.
Principal CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in […]
It is one of the most time-honoured and cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party (adversary) should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, we repeat, unless and until there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis.
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted an enduring advantage to a particular assesseeIt is nobody’s case that assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services.
A bare reading of cl. (baa) (1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc., formed part of gross total income being business profits. But, for the purposes of working out the formula and in order to avoid distortion of arriving export profits cl. (baa) stood inserted to say that although incentive profits and ‘independent incomes’ constituted part of gross total income, they had to be excluded from gross total income because such receipts had no nexus with the export turnover.
Section 41(1) of the Act in plain terms provides for adding back of an allowance or deduction which has been made by the assessee in any year in respect of loss expenditure or trading liability and subsequently during any previous year such liability ceases. The primary requirement of applicability of this provision therefore is where an allowance or reduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of such loss or expenditure or trading liability. When no such allowance or deduction was made, question of applicability of section 41(1) of the Act would not arise.
